DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because :
Figure 3 contains items that are blurry and illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.131(c). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting of claims 1-2 in U.S. application 18/982169 in view of Holmbacka et al, Finland Patent Num FI20215944A1 (hereinafter Holmbacka). This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 of application 18/982169 fails to specify process information for at least one alternative energy source; and load shift power to the system between mains power and the battery backup based on one or more characteristics of the battery backup, and/or the at least one alternative energy source.
However, Holmbacka teaches process information for at least one alternative energy source (Holmbacka, lines 335-352 – The system is co-located with local energy production/”alternative energy source” equipment including solar panels or wind mill that may be used for further electrical power balancing based on information regarding operation modes, weather, and emergency situations.); and load shift power to the system between mains power and the battery backup based on one or more characteristics of the battery backup, and/or the at least one alternative energy source. (Holmbacka, lines 335-352 – The system adjusts/shifts the power source for equipment between local energy production/”alternative energy source” equipment, battery backup, and electric grid/”mains power” based on information/characteristics that include electric grid/”mains power” pricing, weather conditions that are optimal for local energy production, and battery charge status.)
Application 18/982169 and Holmbacka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to cellular network battery backup systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above automation control system, as taught by application 18/982169, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Holmbacka.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to ensure operation of the telecommunications network during possible outages of the electric network by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Holmbacka (lines 17-20).
Instant Application
Application 18/982169
Claim 1
A cellular network system, comprising:
an energy controller having a processor and memory configured to:
provision a battery backup to supply power to the system for X number of hours;
process information for at least one alternative energy source; and
load shift power to the system between mains power and the battery backup based on one or more characteristics of the mains power, the battery backup, and/or the at least one alternative energy source.
Claim 1
A cellular network system, comprising:
an energy controller having a processor and memory configured to:
provision a battery backup to supply power to the system for X number of hours; and
load shift power to the system between mains power and the battery backup based on one or more characteristics of the mains power.
It is well settled that it is unobviousness in the overall appearance of the claimed design, when compared with the prior art, rather than minute details or small variations in design as appears to be the case here, that constitutes the test of design patentability. See In re Frick, 275 F.2d 741, 125 USPQ 191 (CCPA 1960) and In re Lamb, 286 F.2d 610, 128 USPQ 539 (CCPA 1961).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holmbacka et al, Finland Patent Num FI20215944A1 (hereinafter Holmbacka).
Claim 1
Holmbacka discloses a cellular network system (Holmbacka, lines 126-127 - Control power supply of telecommunications/cellular networks.), comprising: an energy controller having a processor and memory (Holmbacka, lines 172-184 – A general-purpose computer or server or some other electronic data processing apparatus.) configured to: provision a battery backup to supply power to the system for X number of hours (Holmbacka, lines 144-151, 363-369 – The discharging periods of backup batteries are scheduled so that the backup battery is discharged and used as a power supply for network devices during time periods/”X number of hours” when the load or spot pricing in the electric grid is high.); process information for at least one alternative energy source (Holmbacka, lines 335-352 – The system is co-located with local energy production/”alternative energy source” equipment including solar panels or wind mill that may be used for further electrical power balancing based on information regarding operation modes, weather, and emergency situations.); and load shift power to the system between mains power and the battery backup based on one or more characteristics of the mains power, the battery backup, and/or the at least one alternative energy source. (Holmbacka, lines 335-352 – The system adjusts/shifts the power source for equipment between local energy production/”alternative energy source” equipment, battery backup, and electric grid/”mains power” based on information/characteristics that include electric grid/”mains power” pricing, weather conditions that are optimal for local energy production, and battery charge status.)
Claim 3
Holmbacka discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Holmbacka further discloses the at least one alternative energy source comprises a solar system and/or wind power system. (Holmbacka, lines 335-352 – The system is co-located with local energy production/”alternative energy source” equipment including solar panels or wind mills.)
Claim 5
Holmbacka discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Holmbacka further discloses the processor and the memory are configured to load shift power to the system based on one or more characteristics of batteries in the battery backup. (Holmbacka, lines 284-316 - The discharging periods and the charging periods are scheduled so that battery specific context/”characteristics of batteries” is taken into account.)
Claim 6
Holmbacka discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Holmbacka further discloses the one or more characteristics of batteries in the battery backup include battery charge/discharge characteristics. (Holmbacka, lines 284-321 - The discharging periods and the charging periods are scheduled so that battery specific context/”characteristics of batteries” including backup battery degradation and/or reserve capacity/”battery charge-discharge characteristics” is taken into account.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmbacka et al, Finland Patent Num FI20215944A1 (hereinafter Holmbacka) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6 above, and in view of Patel, US Patent Pub US 20160043547 A1 (hereinafter Patel).
Claim 2
Holmbacka discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Holmbacka fails to specify the one or more characteristics of the mains power includes a cost schedule having on-peak and off-peak rates.
However Patel teaches the one or more characteristics of the mains power includes a cost schedule having on-peak and off-peak rates. (Patel, para 41-43 – Determination/schedule of electricity costs for peak and off-peak periods.)
Holmbacka and Patel are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy storage systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy storage system, as taught by Holmbacka, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Patel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to detect appropriate periods to reconnect the devices to the grid to replenish the expended energy in the energy storage capacity by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Patel (Abstract).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmbacka et al, Finland Patent Num FI20215944A1 (hereinafter Holmbacka) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-6 above, and in view of Hill et al, US Patent Pub US 20210203182 A1 (hereinafter Hill).
Claim 4
Holmbacka discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Holmbacka fails to specify the at least one alternative energy source provides energy to the battery backup.
However Hill teaches the at least one alternative energy source provides energy to the battery backup. (Hill, para 14 - A solar panel used to charge a rechargeable battery pack.)
Holmbacka and Hill are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to energy storage systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above energy storage system, as taught by Holmbacka, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hill.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide battery power to the cellular system when no grid connection is available by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hill (para 15).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnamoorthy et al, US Patent Pub US 20180054070 relates to claims regarding storing and supplying electrical energy to a load based on various external constraints arising from the availability of renewable electricity, utility electricity rates, and stability of the electrical grid.
Jammer, US Patent Pub US 20140316600 relates to claims regarding a battery backup system that provides power and charges batteries.
Prosser et al, US Patent Pub US 20120245744 relates to claims regarding a battery system that uses stored energy during peak demand periods and charges during off peak periods, and local generation systems including solar and wind.
Beeman, US Patent Pub US 20140172183 relates to claims regarding an input connectable to a mains electrical supply, an energy storage device, a supply converter selectively connectable to an electrical supply to convert electrical power from the electrical supply to energy for storage in the energy storage device, and a load converter arranged to convert energy from the energy storage device to electrical power for supply to an electrical load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights